The Social Security tax has been raising
more money than is needed to pay for current benefits, in order to build up a
surplus to help finance the retirement of the Baby Boom generation. All of this
surplus is lent to the U.S. Treasury when the Social Security Trust Fund buys
bonds from it. The money is then used to finance the federal deficit, just like
any other money the government borrows. The bonds held by the fund pay the same
interest as bonds held by the public. These bonds are every bit as real (or as
much of a fiction) as the bonds held by banks, corporations, and individuals.
Throughout U.S. history the federal government has always paid its debts. As a
result, government bonds enjoy the highest credit ratings and are considered
one of the safest assets in the world. Thus the fund has very real and secure
assets.

It is true that the interest the government pays on these bonds is a drain on
the Treasury, as will be the money paid by the government when the fund
ultimately cashes in its bonds. But this drain has nothing to do with Social
Security. If the Social Security Trust Fund were not currently building up a
surplus, and lending the money to the government, the government would still be
running a deficit of approximately $60 billion in its non-Social Security
operations. It would then have to borrow this money from individuals like H.
Ross Perot and Peter G. Peterson and to pay out more interest each year to the
people it borrowed from. Therefore, the government's debt to the fund is simply
a debt it would have incurred in any event. The government's other spending and
tax policies, not Social Security, will be the cause if there is any problem in
the future in paying off the bonds held by the fund.

The government bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund will always be a
comparatively small portion of the government's debt, and therefore a
relatively minor burden. They will hit a peak of about 14.4 percent of gross
domestic product in 2015, whereas the debt now held by individuals and
corporations is about 47 percent of GDP. Therefore, at its peak the burden of
interest payments to the fund will be less than a third as large as the
interest burden the government now bears.

2.> The government uses overly optimistic numbers to convince people that Social
Security will be there for them. The situation is much worse than the
government admits.

Actually, Social Security projections are based on extremely pessimistic
economic assumptions: that growth will average just 1.8 percent over the next
twenty years, a lower rate than in any comparable period in U.S. history; that
growth will slow even further in later years, until the rate is less than half
the 2.6 percent of the past twenty years; that there will be no increase in
immigration even when the economy experiences a labor shortage because of the
retirement of the Baby Boom generation; and that this labor shortage will not
lead to a rapid growth in wages. Both possibilities excluded in these
projections—increased immigration and rapid wage growth—would increase the
fund's revenues. These projections are genuinely a worst-case scenario.

3. The demographics of the Baby Boom will place an unbearable burden on the
Social Security system.

Those who want to overhaul Social Security make their case with the following
numbers: in 1960 there were more than five workers for each beneficiary; today
there are 3.3 workers; by 2030 there will be only two workers for each
beneficiary. At present the fund is running an annual surplus of more than $80
billion, approximately 20 percent as much as its current expenditures. This
surplus will generate interest revenue to help support the system as the ratio
of workers to beneficiaries continues to fall in the next century. Also, the
fact that workers are becoming more productive year by year means that it will
take fewer workers to support each retiree. The United States had 10.5 farm
workers for every hundred people in 1929; it has fewer than 1.1 farm workers
for every hundred people today. Yet the population is well fed, and we even
export food. Rising farm productivity made this possible. Similarly, increases
in worker productivity (which have been and should be reflected in higher
incomes), however small compared with those of the past, will allow each
retiree to be supported by an ever smaller number of workers.

In fact the demographics of the Baby Boom have very little to do with the
long-range problems of Social Security. The main reason the fund will run into
deficits in future years is that people are living longer. If people continue
to retire at the same age but live longer, then a larger percentage of their
lives will be spent in retirement. If people want to spend a larger portion of
their lives in retirement, either they will have to accept lower incomes
(reduced benefits) in their retirement years relative to those of their working
years, or they will have to increase the portion of their incomes (higher
taxes) that they put aside during their working years for retirement.

This is the main long-range problem facing Social Security. Current projections
show that the annual deficit will be 5.71 percent of taxable payroll in 2070,
long after the Baby Boom will have passed into history. But the annual deficit
is expected to be only 4.44 percent of taxable payroll in 2035, when the worst
crunch from retired Baby Boomers will be felt.

Examining just the change in the ratio of beneficiaries to workers overstates
the burden that workers will face in the future. To assess the burden
accurately it is necessary to examine the total number of
dependents—beneficiaries and children—each worker will have to support. It is
projected that this ratio will rise from 0.708 per worker at present to 0.795
in 2035. But even this number is well below the ratio of 0.946 that prevailed
in 1965. And the fund's trustees project a lower birth rate, meaning that the
increased costs of providing for a larger retired population will be largely
offset by the reduction of expenses associated with caring for children.

4. Future generations will experience declining living standards because of
the government debt and the burden created by Social Security.

Projections indicate that workers' real wages will increase by approximately
one percent a year. If Social Security benefits are left unchanged, in order to
meet the fund's obligations it will be necessary to raise the Social Security
tax by 0.1 percent a year (0.05 percent on the employer and 0.05 percent on the
employee) for thirty-six years, beginning in 2010. This will be a total tax
increase of 3.6 percent, approximately the same as the increase in Social
Security taxes from 1977 to 1990.

Even with this schedule of tax increases, real wages after Social Security
taxes are deducted will continue to rise. By 2046, when the tax increases are
fully phased in, the average wage after Social Security taxes will be more than
45 percent higher than at present. As noted earlier, this is based on
pessimistic projections about wage growth.

5. By 2030 federal spending on entitlement programs for the elderly will consume
all the revenue collected by the government.

By far the greatest part of the projected increases in federal spending on
entitlement programs for the elderly is attributable to a projected explosion
in national health-care costs, both public and private. According to
projections from the Health Care Financing Administration, average health-care
spending for a family of four in 2030 will be more than 80 percent of the
median family's before-tax income. If such an explosion in health-care costs
actually occurred, the economy would be destroyed even if we eliminated
entitlement programs altogether. If health-care costs in the public and private
sectors are brought under control, the problems posed by demographic trends
will be quite manageable.

It is very deceptive to combine other spending categories with health care;
projected health-care costs by themselves will consume most of the budget. For
example, projected federal spending on education, highways, and health care
combined should be more than 80 percent of federal revenues in 2030; defense
spending plus projected health-care spending should come close to 70 percent of
federal revenues.

6. If Social Security were privatized, it would lead to a higher national
saving rate and more growth.

By itself, privatizing Social Security would not create a penny of additional
savings. All the privatization plans call for the government to continue to pay
Social Security benefits to current recipients and those about to retire;
therefore spending would be exactly the same after privatization as it was
before privatization. Yet the government would no longer be collecting Social
Security taxes. Each dollar an individual put into a private retirement account
rather than paying it to the government in Social Security taxes would still be
a dollar the government must borrow. Individuals would be saving more, but the
government would have reduced its saving (increased its borrowing) by exactly
the same amount. Most of the privatization schemes being put forward call for
additional taxes and additional borrowing to finance a transition while
benefits were being paid out under the old system. Any additions to national
savings attributable to these plans would stem entirely from the tax increase.
This tax increase would have the identical effect on national savings if it
were not linked to privatizing Social Security. In other words, raising taxes
is one way to increase national savings, and if we are willing to raise taxes,
we need not privatize Social Security.

The fact that individuals might put their savings in the stock market or in
other private assets, whereas the Social Security Trust Fund buys government
bonds, doesn't affect the level of saving at all. If it did, the government
could increase the level of saving in the economy by borrowing money and then
investing it in the stock market, or by borrowing money and giving it to
individuals with the requirement that they invest it in the stock market. If
either step could increase the level of saving in the economy, the government
should take it independent of any changes in the Social Security system.

In fact, all else being equal, if individuals invested the money they would
otherwise pay out in Social Security taxes, less saving would result, because a
large portion of this money would be siphoned off by the financial industry.
Currently stock brokers, insurance companies, and other financial institutions
charge their customers an average of more than one percent a year on the value
of the money they hold. Thus if $1,000 is invested through a brokerage firm for
forty years, the investor will have been charged in excess of $400 in fees on
the original investment, plus an additional one percent a year on all gains.
These fees are a big cost from the standpoint of the individual investor, and a
complete waste from the standpoint of the economy as a whole. Meanwhile, the
operating expenses of the Social Security system are less than $8.00 for every
$1,000 paid out to beneficiaries.

It is easy to see why costs in the private financial sector are so much higher.
The private sector pays hundreds of thousands of insurance agents and brokers
to solicit business. It also incurs enormous costs in television, radio,
newspaper, and magazine advertising. In addition, many executives and brokers
in the financial industry receive huge salaries. Million-dollar salaries are
not uncommon, and some executives earn salaries in the tens of millions.
Privatization would add these expenses, which are currently absent from the
Social Security system.

7. If people invest their money themselves, they will get a higher return
than if they leave it with the government.

This may be true for some people, but it cannot be true on average, for much
the same reasons as noted above. Some people may end up big winners by picking
the right stocks, but if the national saving rate has not increased, the
economy will not have increased its growth rate, and the economic pie will be
no larger in the future with privatization than it would have been without it.
Thus high returns for some must come at the expense of others. In fact, since
the cost of operating a retirement system is so much greater through the
financial markets than through the Social Security system, the average person
will actually be worse off.

Some advocates of government-mandated saving plans argue that individual
investors can get real returns of seven percent on money invested in the stock
market (the historical rate of return), and that this would ensure a
comfortable retirement for everyone. Certainly people have gotten far better
returns in the market in the past few years, but if Social Security projections
are accurate, such rates of return cannot be sustained. Profits can rise only
as fast as the economy grows (unless wages fall as a share of national income,
which no one is projecting). If stock prices maintain a fixed relationship to
profits, then stock prices will grow at the same rate as the economy. The total
return will therefore approximate the ratio of dividends to the stock price
(currently about three percent) plus the rate of economic growth (two percent
over the next ten years, but projected to fall to 1.2 percent in the middle of
the next century). This means that the returns people can expect from investing
in the stock market will be five percent in the near future and 4.2 percent
later in the next century. For stock prices to rise enough to maintain a real
return of seven percent, price-to-earnings ratios would have to exceed 400:1 by
2070.

8. The Consumer Price Index overstates the true rate of increase in the cost of
living. Social Security recipients are therefore getting a huge bonanza each
year, because their checks are adjusted in accordance with the CPI.

There is considerable dispute about the accuracy of the CPI. The Boskin
Commission, which was appointed by the Senate Finance Committee to examine the
CPI, stated in its final report, in 1996, that overall the CPI had been
overstating the cost of living by 1.3 percentage points a year. However, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the CPI understated the cost of living
when compared with an index that measured the cost of living for the elderly.
This is because the elderly spend an unusually large share of their income on
health care and housing, which have risen relatively rapidly in price.
Questions remain about the accuracy of the CPI, and they cannot be resolved
without further research.

However, one point is clear. If the CPI has been overstating inflation, then
future generations will be much better off than we imagined. If inflation has
been overstated, then real wage growth must have been understated, since
real wage growth is actual wage growth minus the rate of inflation. If we
accept the Boskin Commission's midrange estimate of CPI overstatement, average
real wages in 2030 will be more than $54,000 (measured in today's dollars). If
the commission's high-end estimate is right, average wages will be nearly
$65,000. By 2050 average wages will be at least $82,000 and possibly as much as
$108,000.

Another implication of a CPI that overstates inflation is that people were much
poorer in the recent past than is generally recognized. This conclusion is
inescapable: if the rate of inflation is lower than indicated by the CPI, then
real wages and living standards have been rising faster than is indicated by
calculations that use the CPI. If wages and living standards have been rising
faster than we thought, then past levels must have been lower. Projecting
backward, the Boskin Commission's estimate of the overstatement of the CPI
gives a range for the median family income in 1960 of $15,000 to $18,000 (in
today's dollars)—or 95 to 110 percent of income at the current poverty
level.

If the Boskin Commission's evaluation of the CPI is accepted, any assessment of
generational equity looks very bad from the standpoint of the elderly: they
lived most of their lives in or near poverty. And the future looks extremely
bright for the young. Average annual wages in 1960, when today's
seventy-three-year-olds were thirty-five, was between $10,006 and $11,902 in
today's dollars. Average annual wages in 2030, when today's newborns are
thirty-two, will be between $54,000 and $65,000 in today's dollars. Such
numbers make it hard to justify cutting Social Security for the elderly in
order to enrich future generations, on the grounds of generational equity.

9. Social Security gives tens of billions of dollars each year to senior
citizens who don't need it. This money could be better used to support poor
children.

Most of the elderly are not very well off. Their median household income is
only about $18,000. However, even if they were better off, it would be hard to
justify taking away their Social Security on either moral or economic grounds.

Social Security is a social-insurance program, not a welfare program. People
pay into it during their working lives. They have a right to expect something
in return, just as they expect interest payments when they buy a government
bond. Social Security is already progressive: the rate of return on tax
payments is much lower for the wealthy than for the poor. This progressivity is
enhanced by the fact that Social Security income is taxable for middle- and
high-income retirees but not for low-income retirees. If benefits for
higher-income retirees were cut back further, those people would be receiving
virtually no return for the taxes they paid in. This would be certain to
undermine support for the program.

From an economic standpoint, means testing or any other way of denying benefits
to the wealthy would be foolish, because it would give people a great incentive
to hide income and thereby pass the means test. There are many ways this could
be done. Parents could pass most of their assets on to their children and then
continue to collect full benefits. People could move their money into assets
that don't yield an annual income, such as land or some kinds of stock. Most of
the income of retirees is from accumulated assets, which makes it much easier
to hide than wage income. Means testing would in effect place a very high
marginal tax rate on senior citizens, giving them a strong incentive to find
ways to evade taxes. It may be desirable to get more revenue from the wealthy,
but means testing for Social Security makes about as much sense as means
testing for interest on government bonds.

Most Popular

Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing today.

— Deuteronomy 15: 12–15

Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation.

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

Most of the big names in futurism are men. What does that mean for the direction we’re all headed?

In the future, everyone’s going to have a robot assistant. That’s the story, at least. And as part of that long-running narrative, Facebook just launched its virtual assistant. They’re calling it Moneypenny—the secretary from the James Bond Films. Which means the symbol of our march forward, once again, ends up being a nod back. In this case, Moneypenny is a send-up to an age when Bond’s womanizing was a symbol of manliness and many women were, no matter what they wanted to be doing, secretaries.

Why can’t people imagine a future without falling into the sexist past? Why does the road ahead keep leading us back to a place that looks like the Tomorrowland of the 1950s? Well, when it comes to Moneypenny, here’s a relevant datapoint: More than two thirds of Facebook employees are men. That’s a ratio reflected among another key group: futurists.

Members of Colombia's younger generation say they “will not torture for tradition.”

MEDELLÍN, Colombia—On a scorching Saturday in February, hundreds of young men and women in Medellín stripped down to their swimsuit bottoms, slathered themselves in black and red paint, and sprawled out on the hot cement in Los Deseos Park in the north of the city. From my vantage point on the roof of a nearby building, the crowd of seminude protesters formed the shape of a bleeding bull—a vivid statement against the centuries-old culture of bullfighting in Colombia.

It wasn’t long ago that Colombia was among the world’s most important countries for bullfighting, due to the quality of its bulls and its large number of matadors. In his 1989 book Colombia: Tierra de Toros (“Colombia: Land of Bulls”), Alberto Lopera chronicled the maturation of the sport that Spanish conquistadors had introduced to South America in the 16th century, from its days as an unorganized brouhaha of bulls and booze in colonial plazas to a more traditional Spanish-style spectacle whose fans filled bullfighting rings across the country.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.